Obviously, if two premises contradict each other, something is wrong, but nothing in his proof has contradicted itself.
P1: Light takes time to get to the eye.
P2: Light is at the eye instantly.
Light flows.
No, it moves in straight lines at c. Water flows.
The only thing that is at the eye instantly is the light that is reflected onto our photoreceptors.
That's nonsense. Reflected light is at the reflecting object, in the instant of its reflection, and then takes time to travel from there to the eye.
No, you're missing the concept entirely.
Light is reflected off the object.
At which instant, the light is "at the object", right?
What are you talking about?
At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye.
Right?
Let's be careful with words.
Yes, let's. That would make for a very refreshing change from you.
Photons travel, so when you say "the photon is at the object", it isn't making sense.
Yes, it is. Cars travel. When I say "my car is at home" that makes complete sense. It is where my car is, at the time when I am speaking.
When talking about the location of an object that can move, we must "be careful with words", and remember to specify what time we are talking about:
"
At the instant that a given photon is reflected off an object, that photon is "at the object", and is some distance from the eye."
See, right there, in bold? That bit makes the rest make perfect sense.
Remember, we are talking about two different things. One is light traveling at 186,000 miles per second. The other is unrelated to distance and time.
Well, thanks for saying what the other isn't; But you leave me no less confused about what it IS.
Please stop conflating the two.
I am highly doubtful that there are two things to conflate here. Perhaps you could be more "careful with words"?
And we know that (in your own words):
If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object. You are still looking at this from the point of view of afferent vision, but what I'm trying to get you to see is that if we see the object, the light has to be at the eye.
So it follows that at the instant that that photon reflects off the object, it is not at the eye (because we just noted that it is at the object); And therefore, as "it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object" as it is in that instant; Instead, we will see it as it was at some earlier instant, when the photons that were "at the object"
then have arrived at the eye
now.
No, this is wrong. There is no travel time.
Sure there is. The object is over there; The eye is over here; that photon travels only at c; Therefore that photon took time to travel from there to here.
Travel time is unavoidable, as long as we are "careful with words", and make sure to talk about a specific time and place for each of the three things - the object, the eye, and the photon.
If we see the object, there is enough light in which to see it.
At the eye. Yes.
This does not mean that photons don't travel at lightspeed.
No, it doesn't. Photons always travel at lightspeed.
It just means that the object's light does not bounce and travel through space/time.
What is "the object's light"? Be careful with words. Be precise.
The object is revealed through light as we turn our gaze toward it.
Through light that has crossed the gap between object and eye, yes.
That crossing took time, because when the light was at the object, it was not at the eye; And now that the light is at the eye, it is no longer at the object; And there is a gap between object and eye; And photons travel at lightspeed.
In other words, we see the object as it was in the past.
If the light is switched off, the photons at the lightsource the instant before it is switched off will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light goes out.
And the reverse is also true. When the light is switched on, the photons at the lightsource the instant after it is switched on will travel to the object (taking time to do so); Then will reflect off the object, and travel to the eye (taking more time to do that), and will therefore not be "at the eye" allowing us to see the object for a brief time after the light comes on.
Instant vision cannot be possible, if everything else you say is true:
I don't know where the confusion began,
When you read your dad's book, and started elevating what it says over what you can learn about reality by simple observation and a commitment to being careful with words.
probably when I used the word "reflected." All of the above is wrong because, as I said over many pages, duration is not part of this account.
Well, I am telling you that it MUST BE, because there is a gap that must be crossed, and nothing can cross a gap without that crossing having a duration.
There is no travel time where the light is reflected,
Correct; There is no travel time where the light is reflected, because the light is reflected at the object, and the object is in
one place.
There IS however travel time between where the light is reflected (at the object), and where the light is seen (at the eye), because these are in
two different places.
and contains the image through space/time.
"Contains the image through space/time" is vague. I thought we were going to be "careful with words"?
No matter how you try to slice it, it doesn't change reality.
Indeed. And the reality is that there is no distance or travel time between one place; But there is ALWAYS distance and travel time between two different places.
Light is reflected off the object.
If it is not at the eye in that instant, we won't be able to see the object
How is light reflected off the object unless that light is "at the object"? If it is "at the object", it is not "at the eye", and cannot be until it travels the distance between object and eye. And as we know:
I don't want to use the word "reflected" anymore because it is misleading. Nothing gets reflected, therefore the image doesn't get reflected.
You don't have to use the word, but it remains the case that light is reflected off objects.
We see the object because it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, period.
That's not true, as has already been demonstrated. If you put an opaque object between yourself and the Sun, the Sun's brightness is unchanged; The Sun's size is unchanged; But you no longer see it.
By conducting this incredibly simple experiment, you can undisputably prove to yourself that the statement: "We see the object because it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, period", is FALSE.
Light travels at a finite speed, but, once again, it does not bounce off objects
...yes it does...
taking the images with it,
That's not meaningful. Remember, be "careful with words" - an image is a plane at which the pattern of photons matches the pattern with which photons are reflected from an object's surface. Images do not travel, photons do.
which is a logical conclusion but is invalid, according to this version of sight, which has never been carefully analyzed.
We have analyzed it to death, right here in this thread. It has been proven to be utter bollocks.
